New Hub Hopper

1. 84

   Marcy Goodfleischposted 11 years ago

   I'm impressed with the constant effort to improve the site, and I can't imagine the many hours of work going into each new feature. As for 'announcing' the Classic version is available, many websites do exactly what HP has done when they roll out a new site or new format.  They keep the new version up and then add a link to the 'Classic,' older version, and they don't necessarily post any sort of announcement - it's just there for those who prefer the former features and interface.
   
   I truly do see the value of the ratings on the new version; I'm just afraid (as I've said) that those who understand the terms and could give valid ratings view it as too time consuming, and there's no filtering mechanism to ensure those who do use it are qualified to evaluate things to the level the rubric (the chart we saw) describes.

   report
   1. 92

      Sherry Hewinsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The biggest thing I really don't like about the new hopper is that there's no way to say if you like the hub or not. I could give it the highest score on all of the sliders, and it could still be totally boring. Maybe they could just add another slider to rate interest level. I think I'm better at evaluating how interesting or entertaining a hub is than I am at evaluating the sentence structure.

      report
      1. 84

         Marcy Goodfleischposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Sherry - I see your point.  I worry, though, that a hub I might not find entertaining (because it's a subject I don't care about, or one that bores me) doesn't deserve a down vote simply because it doesn't appeal to me.  So I usually just move on when I find a hub that has no glaring issues but doesn't interest or entertain me personally.

         report
2. 0

   Arlene V. Pomaposted 11 years ago

   I was not insulted when no announcement or explanation was given.  All you can do is watch for the changes and go with it.  Or play catch up.  Also, some people like to imagine hostilities aimed towards HubPages ADM because of their executive decisions, but I've found no such problem with this thread or most threads.  These people are in need of a reality check because they don't know what they are talking about.  Pick up your toys and go to another location if you can't play nice.  There is a big difference between someone who is frustrated and venting than a person who is angry and wants to cause trouble.  In the case of this long thread, people are expressing themselves and offering suggestions and solutions.  What more could you want?

   report
3. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 11 years ago

   Well, I restrained myself as long as I could. But I finally succumbed...
   
   Bah-bah-bah-bah, bah-bah-bah-bah
   Bah-bah-bah-bah, bah-bah-bah-bah, at the hop!
   
   Well, you can rock it you can roll it
   You can slop and you can stroll it at the hop
   When the record starts spinnin'
   You chalypso* when you chicken at the hop
   Do the dance sensation that is sweepin' the nation at the hop
   
   Ah, let's go do the hop
   Let's go do the hop (oh baby)
   Let's go do the hop (oh baby)
   Let's go do the hop
   Come on, let's go do the hop
   
   Well, you can swing it you can groove it
   You can really start to move it at the hop
   Where the jockey is the smoothest
   And the music is the coolest at the hop
   All the cats and chicks can get their kicks at the hop
   Let's go!
   
   Ah, let's go do the hop
   Let's go do the hop (oh baby)
   Let's go do the hop (oh baby)
   Let's go do the hop
   Come on, let's go do the hop
   Let's go!
   
   [Instrumental Interlude]
   
   Well, you can rock it you can roll it
   You can slop and you can stroll it at the hop
   When the record starts spinnin'
   You chalypso* when you chicken at the hop
   Do the dance sensation that is sweepin' the nation at the hop
   
   Well, you can swing it you can groove it
   You can really start to move it at the hop
   Where the jockey is the smoothest
   And the music is the coolest at the hop
   All the cats and chicks can get their kicks at the hop
   Let's go!
   
   Ah, let's go do the hop
   Let's go do the hop (oh baby)
   Let's go do the hop (oh baby)
   Let's go do the hop
   Come on, let's go do the hop
   Let's go!
   
   
   Modified from Danny & The Juniors - 1957

   report
   1. 80

      snakeslaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Wow! I thought it was 'Lets go 'to' the hop. (Oh Baby...etc.).

      report
      1. 60

         paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It was. But not after I got my mitts on it...

         report
         1. 80

            snakeslaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Ah, yes, of course, very creative!  I'll just hop scotch outta here.

            report
      2. 84

         Marcy Goodfleischposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Me too!  I also thought it was bah-bah-bah, bah-bah-bah-ran.  Wait - that's Barbara Ann, right?
         
         I'd love to have seen the thought process when they wrote lyrics back then. "Let's see - think we need another few 'bahs' right about here?  What about a doo-wop or a diddy somewhere?"

         report
4. 80

   snakeslaneposted 11 years ago

   

   report
5. 0

   Arlene V. Pomaposted 11 years ago

   Jeez.  That song was waaaaaaay before my time--even if it was "modified."  I'm glad I went to breakfast with hubby while it was presented here on this thread.  Yeccch!  Diddly, doo-wop, my Hubs aren't earning squat!  LOL!

   report
6. 87

   Will Apseposted 11 years ago

   It is difficult to see how the manual rating of pages is relevant with the new algo deciding if pages are featured or not.
   
   Do they integrate somehow? It is hard to see.

   report
7. 0

   The Writers Dogposted 11 years ago

   It is difficult to see how the manual rating of pages is relevant with the new algo deciding if pages are featured or not.
   
   Do they integrate somehow? It is hard to see.
   
   It is hard to see anything with the new hopper. Another "improvement", another FAIL

   report
8. 86

   B. Leekleyposted 11 years ago

   I've started to sometimes do the new hub hopper procedure for a hub or two. And when I'm done with each, if I liked it, I note the hub title, find the hub with Search, and there give the author encouragement and feedback by clicking the appropriate Up, Useful, etc. buttons; by commenting if a comment comes to mind, and, if I admire the hub a lot and think my online acquaintances will appreciate it , by sharing it.
   
   I have not yet seen an official explanation of the purpose of either the old or the new hub hopping procedure or of the feedback options that go with every hub. I've assumed the Up button means that I liked the hub. I'm easy to please. I've liked nearly 100% of hubs I saw because I follow that hubber or because the hub was shared or because the hub was in some way featured. When I hub hop, some days I'm luckier than others, but usually it's a mix between those that at least deserve some encouragement and those I skip doing more than setting the sliders.
   
   I have never clicked the Down button. If a hub is awful enough to vote Down, then I figure it's awful enough to Flag. In about 10 months of hubbing, I've only flagged two or three hubs -- they were more like infomercials for some product or service. If a hub is just so-so, not very substantial, lacking in interest, then I just skip giving the hubber feedback and set the sliders appropriately.
   
   I do my best with the new hub hopper procedure, but as a measuring tool it seems very crude. The major factors in whether I admire a hub and praise and share it and maybe even start following that hubber are not even mentioned -- Is the hub charming? Does the hubber have a good heart? Is the hubber passionate about the topic? Does the writing give me a vicarious experience? And on the other hand some factors that the new hub hopper gives as important for getting to the high end of the scale are to me not important. Passion is way more important than objectivity. Anyone past 4th grade can write objective facts in coherent sentences. It is very rare for a hub not to achieve that. So it's rarely that I don't put a hub hopper scale in the 7 to 10 range. But what about above 10? I'm an enthusiastic fan of some hubbers who write about matters that are a zero part of my life -- parenting; running a micro farm the old fashioned way; cross-training exercises,  everyday life in another country, and so on. Those hubs are several notches above merely providing objective information in coherent paragraphs. It's the hubbers passion, charm, good hearted good humor, and way with words. I suppose the best measures of such factors are whether a hub is getting comments and getting shared.
   
   So why did the HubPages company make sharing harder by taking away the Facebook, Google+, and other sharing buttons? If I want to share, I copy and paste the URL, but the share buttons were far more convenient. Any guesses why they were encouraging sharing and now are discouraging sharing?
   
   Am I imaging it, or are more hub these days going longer with no comments since the new hub hopping procedure was introduced.  Encouraging one another helps us all, precumably, so it is worrisome if the new hub hopper is resulting in less encouragement of newcomers.
   
   It's my understanding from what I've gleaned that the staff uses the statistics from the new hub hopper to help them decide which hubs to feature.  That's fine.  But will those statistics also be shared with us hubbers. I'd like to see a quarterly statistical report on my hubs that got hub hopped. If the median first slider position from a couple of dozen hub hoppers for one of my hubs is only, say, at 7, that might be a clue that I need to choose more interesting topics or to write better.

   report
   1. 86

      B. Leekleyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The new hub hopper is extremely poorly designed. I just (8-31-2012) had another unpleasant experience with it.  There were three in a row that were so short they would scarcely serve as adequate introductory capsules. One consisted entirely of a dozen links, with not a word about them. The others had nothing wrong with them as regards proper grammar and clarity. They were just insubstantial due to being far too short to have a point or a purpose. None of the wording on the sliders covers that situation. I had to calculate how turned off I was and gauge were to put the sliders on that basis. There should be a 4th slider with too short at one end and too long at the other end relative to what's needed to say, "This is perfect and wonderful!"
      
      While setting the scales on one of those hubs, I clicked a What Is This? link to find out more about the new hub hopper procedure. Instead of the information popping up and not interfering with what I was doing, it opened in the same window, so I had to back arrow to the hub I was grading. The snooty programmer said, "You have not finished grading this hub!", which I knew already, but instead of letting me continue where I left off, the sliders were gone, and the only options given me were to hop to another hub or quit hub hopping. So the thought and effort I had put into that one were wasted.
      
      I kept hub hopping and lucked upon a hub that was perfect and wonderful. I read it with eager curiosity and admiration and looked forward to giving it three 10s. But when I left off watching a video capsule, the sliders had disappeared and again my options were to quit or to leave, with no opportunity to give the hub the high scores it deserved. Aggravation. Luckily I took note of the title, so I will be able to find the hub and praise its author.

      report
9. 74

   WriteAngledposted 11 years ago

   You can now use the old hopper again.
   
   You have to enter the new obscenity, but then you will see a link to access the so-called "Classic Hopper".
   
   I think that people who hate the new hopper should use the classic one as much as they can. If there is overwhelming use of the classic hopper and negligible use of the new one, this will send a message to HP staff that people do not want the new one.
   
   I will never use the new hopper because it is too time-consuming. I am paid $40 per hour for the editing/review work I do on a routine basis in my freelance business. I do not see why I should do such work for free, although I am fully qualified to do it should I wish (such activities have been part of my work in one way or another since 1989).
   
   My own experience of hopping is that I flag about 95% of the hubs presented as low quality, purely personal drivel or spam. Most of the remaining 5% are not about topics that interest me, so I move on.
   
   I have never found anyone I want to follow through the hopper. The people I follow are those who have impressed me in one way or another by what they have said on the forums or in comments on my hubs. I do also check out everyone who follows me. In extremely rare cases, I follow them back.

   report
   1. 82

      mary615posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't realize we have a choice.   I'm back to the old method which I enjoyed.

      report
   2. 92

      Sherry Hewinsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Wow! You flag 95% of hubs in the hopper? That's pretty brutal.

      report
      1. 74

         WriteAngledposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe not every time, but a lot of the time. Possibly my hopping times occur when spammers are at their most active.
         
         It is unbelievable how much garbage is being pushed endlessly onto this site. Spun content, copied content, illiterate content, images used without attribution, pure advertising, purely personal maunderings, and so it goes on.
         
         Unfortunately, HP staff are more concerned with censoring hubs that only manage to get a few views, rather than tackling this far more important problem, which surely contributes far more to bringing down the site in the ratings.

         report
10. 82

    tillsontitanposted 11 years ago

    I have to admit I miss the comments box...the rest of the new format is fine.  How will new hubbers know what you think without the comment box?  I really think that is vital to new hubbers, helping them get ideas about how well their hub is doing and meeting hubbers.

    report
    1. 82

       mary615posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I totally agree with you, tillsonititan!  I used to enjoy hub hopping when I had a few minutes to spare, but I don't enjoy it any more.

       report
11. 86

    B. Leekleyposted 11 years ago

    I've made peace with the new hopper. (I'm an enneagram 9.)  It's a way to take time to say why a hub isn't worth my time -- like a personal gripe one paragraph long hub full of bad grammar, typos, and mishmash sentences. (That got a Substance 1.) When I give a hub hop hub 10s or near 10s, then I jot down the title and later find it and vote Up, Useful, etc., and comment and maybe share.

    report
    1. 82

       tillsontitanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I like B. Leekly's suggestion. Not all new hubs are well constructed and I prefer not to hurt people's feelings.

       report
12. 62

    Scribenetposted 11 years ago

    It has taken me awhile to try the new Hub Hopper. I think I prefer the old one, but that said, having the exit button helps as well as having the option to explore Hubs the old way.
    
    I primrarily have used the Hub Hopper to find new faces and have only flagged the real obvious spammers. The new Hub Hopper does allow more input...but I think I have to be in the mood to be doing such a detailed assessment even though it is a sliding scale;it requires a fair amount of thought if one wants to be fair on the longer pieces..
    
    I would prefer something like an assessment on "length"
    ( I notice some are just a paragraph...too short)
    
    Maybe something on "readability"
    ( sometimes it looks crowded, other times the grammar can just be boring to read, other times just bad grammar)
    
    Though content is a valid assessment, if it is a topic of no interest to me, I cannot be fair. I would prefer something on "level of interest" or somethinglike that.
    
    Those are my thoughts. I do not want to be overly critical of other Hubbers..I don't mind "once in awhile" weeding out the obvious drivel and spam ...but I am not so keen on doing a detailed critique because what I consider awful someone else may consider awesome and vise versa

    report
13. 63

    Liz-reviewsposted 11 years ago

    I definately prefer the classic hub hopper. I tried the new one a couple of times, and have not used it since. I prefer being able to skip and or go back if I want to, and love the comment box. When I'm in hub hopper (classic version) I check the writers Bio first to see if they are new to Hubpages, then I go back and read the Hub and comment and rate.

    report
14. 95

    melbelposted 11 years ago

    I prefer the classic hopper as well.
    
    I think some improvements (for me, anyway) to the new hopper would be:
    -Allow me to vote in only certain categories. I would seriously hop a ton more if I could just look the params for overall layout/visual_appeal of the hub and the grammar.
    
    I don't really want to get into voting on the "flow" of writing and so I avoid hopping.
    
    This could be done very easily. You could allow users to vote in whatever categories they like. A sample hub has people voting in whatever categories they choose:
    
    flow_of_writing = [4,4,5,6]
    layout_of_hub = [4,6,6,6,7,7,8]
    grammar = [5,6,6,6,7,7,7,8]
    
    avg_flow_of_writing = 4.75
    flow_of_writing_voters = 4 (four people voted in this category) and so on. Maybe a lot programmatically, but I dunno, I would hop more often if I weren't required to vote on the flow of writing.

    report
15. 85

    DzyMsLizzyposted 11 years ago

    So---I see that HP doesn't like what everyone had to say on the "MTurk" hub-hopping post--they've closed it to replies. No matter....
    
    I still fail to see how outsiders will benefit the system; they don't work for HP and know the (supposed) standards.  Even those who do seem to make mistakes in judgement that may me shake my head.  I've read the standards/requirements for being voted as "HOTD."
    Yet, I constantly see posts with that accolade, that fail to meet the stated specifications.
    Just today, for example, I was looking at a HOTD, and I did not even finish reading it, because there were at least three spelling and wrong word choice errors within the very first capsule!!!!!
    There were a few more in the next couple of capsules. 
    Really, HP?  This is your elite standard for "proper grammar, spelling, construction...etc, etc,.." that qualifies a hub for this award?  Are there that few meeting your standards that the standards and expectations have been lowered? 
    That is the problem with our schools and educational system--the standards were lowered to allow more "graduates" who can't even read or construct a proper sentence.
    And we are reaping the results.....

    report
    1. 92

       Sherry Hewinsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I don't think being a member of hubpages is going to guarantee high standards for hub hoppers either. After all the same people who post the crappy hubs can go in and rate your hubs.

       report
       1. 85

          DzyMsLizzyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          That is also  true, Sherry, 
          I guess I was referring to staff...as they are the ones who created the standards, and who select the HOTD's.

          report
    2. 74

       WriteAngledposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       In all times, "teacher's pets" have been able to evade standards applied to everyone else. Why should HP be different in that respect?
       
       As for Helium, you don't want to know about it! It is the worst writing site I can imagine. I was on it for about six months before I left in disgust.
       
       In order to be able to collect your earning on Helium, you have to rate a certain minimum number of articles. Since Helium has people writing to fixed titles, rating consists of indicating which of two articles written to the same topic is of higher quality. If your rating does not match those of the Helium algorithm and of other raters, you basically lose the credit for that rating, and as a result you might not meet the requirements to be paid for your own articles.
       
       Otherwise, the Helium forums are full of brown-nosers. Those more perceptive members, who express criticism of the powers that be, are subject to censorship.

       report
16. 86

    IzzyMposted 11 years ago

    I must be missing out on something.
    
    Why are hubs being rated? Rated for what exactly?
    
    I mean, they either follow HP's rules, or they don't.
    
    What are the ratings for?
    
    Something serious is about to happen, else HP wouldn't be subcontracting the rating of hubs out.
    
    This is way more than simply upholding standards.

    report
    1. 0

       EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I hope this site doesn't turn into Helium, where I gather that people have to rate other articles in order to qualify for payments.

       report
       1. 85

          DzyMsLizzyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Agreed, EmpressFelicity,
          Although I'm not familiar with "Helium," I do think that kind of set-up you described would be a very bad move.
          If it does, I'm taking my ball and going home.

          report
       2. 86

          IzzyMposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I know nothing about Helium to be honest, except what I reading here.
          
          While I honestly don't see HP following that route when it comes to getting paid (after all, it is the advertisers who pay us), what happens to a hub that gets a poor rating? Or a Helium article for that matter?
          
          If you have two hubs, each 1000 words long and written along a similar title/heading/topic, what happens to the hub that is rated lower than the other?
          
          Supposing they were similar but one was more aesthetically pleasing and better laid out.
          
          Does the one that is rated lower get unpublished or put to sleep?
          
          What is the point of the ratings if not to punish hubs that are considered to be lesser, even though the quality is there?
          
          If the article is not of quality, too short, rife with spelling mistakes and non-informative, then I believe it already fails HP standards and would be facing unpublication until it is improved.

          report
          1. 0

             EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Your comments explain perfectly why I am very squicky about having a rating system for hubs - whether the rating is done by MTurk people or other hubbers. Or even staff.
             
             By all means have a system where people can flag spam/duplicate content/spun articles/out-and-out crap, but don't try and make it any more sophisticated than that. It's asking for trouble.

             report
             1. 86

                IzzyMposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                No doubt we will learn in due course what the ratings are for.
                
                Not sure we will be happy, then again this is a business and there are plenty other content providers out there.
                
                Edit: Oops, we are the content providers. Maybe some day someone will treat us as such, because no writing site can succeed without their authors.

                report
                1. 53

                   janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   My guess that the rating will be an upgraded hubscore. If you click on 'Idle Status' twice ZZZ and idled are listed first followed by hubs in hubscore order (smallest at top). Also when a hub comes out of idle it gets a boost from say 65 to 75. I suspect that this is to allow the hub to not get idled again for a while. I know that some hubs with 75 or more get idled, but there are 'quality' issues as well as other relating to external links etc.

                   report
          2. 86

             Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Helium doesn't do anything specific to its low-rated articles. However, the site works by inviting writers to write articles on a title - so that means there are always multiple articles all sharing the same title.  Helium tells us that Google usually only indexes the five top-rated articles in any title - so if you fall out of the top five, your article will get no readers.

             report
             1. 86

                IzzyMposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                So, is that happening on Hubpages?
                
                Hubpages Exclusive Titles springs to mind.
                
                If you ever think up what you consider to be an interesting topic to write about, or topical, a quick search of HP often throws up multiple articles on the same topic.
                
                Sadly, most days you seldom see those articles, no matter how well written, at the top of the SERPS.
                
                But for the longest time, they were. No matter how badly written, the HP platform was immensely powerful.
                
                I remember in my first year here writing a hub, and only learning afterwards that another hubber already had the No. 1 spot in Google for the main keywords. Bad pre-research on my part.
                
                His article was probably the worst I have ever seen.
                
                (Mine got as high as #4 I think.. and even at that got hundreds of daily views - this was all before Panda of course).
                
                Why would HP rate his hub and get it taken down a spot or two when it was bringing in so much money to HP?
                
                Or maybe this hub and all the rest which aren't actually the best out there have fallen off their perch.
                
                That sounds more likely.
                
                And now HP wants hubs rated so that only the best go forward.
                
                I am glad, in that case, that they are using an outside force, because friends vote for friends, don't they?
                
                It's a bit like voting for X-factor finalists, who is the most popular?
                
                Right, I am really thinking out loud here, the rating of hubs is to get rid of the crap, (but highly SEO'd), hubs.
                
                That should leave the cream of the crop.
                
                If that is what HP wants, why don't they just vet their authors? Seems a lot easier, and would cause a lot less tension.
                
                There is nothing worse than putting hours of effort into creating a hub only to be told it's not good enough.

                report
17. 92

    Jean Bakulaposted 11 years ago

    Helium also sells your best articles to magazines, and pays you $1.00 or $2.00 for it. But you have to "win" and have the best article in the narrow category, and get no payout until you reach $25.00. I won 3 out of about a dozen articles. So I made a total of $3.00, but would have to "win" 22 more articles pitted against me with people submitting articles on the same topic, just to get that basic first payout of $25.00. But it's not worth the time to write about their topics. I did write a few on topics I liked, I got permission. But they also own your work for one year, and if it does get published somewhere else, they don't tell you. I have two articles about the Kaballah I want back, I put alot of work into them, and it's a subject I'll be exploring more. But Helium is a ripoff. You also have to read at least 10 pairs of articles from other writers every day. If you don't keep up, your ratings go down. I believe they changed it so the format is more attractive and you can add pictures. But the topics are strange. It could be about a certain insect, or teenage health. You can also see they have "pets." I beat one of them on an article I wrote about Haiti, and they didn't like me after that. I just want my stuff back when the date comes around.

    report
    1. 86

       IzzyMposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       What a rip-off!
       
       I'm glad I never wrote for them.
       
       Hope you get your articles back.

       report